T.C. JOHN @ YOHANNAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. v V.J. ANTONY AND OTHERS
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's assessment of compensation, held that the appellants are not entitled to interest for the 708-day delay in filing the appeal (attributable to them) but modified the High Court order to allow the appellants interest at the same rate for the period 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 because the delay in supplying the paper book by their counsel cannot be imputed to the appellants.
Court disposition
Appeal partly allowed.
Orders
- Impugned High Court order modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest at the same rate for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023.
- Appeal partly allowed with no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) Through Lrs.
Appellants Claimants Counsel: Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep PoolakkotV.J. Antony and Others
Respondents Counsel: Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Vaibhav, Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Ujjwal SinghAmounts and remedies
- Claim Sought: INR 1,500,000
- Tribunal Award: INR 415,000
- Enhancement Amount Awarded by High Court: INR 984,500
- Monthly Income Assessed: INR 8,750
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the High Court was justified in denying interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 which was the period of delay in supplying the copy of paper book to the standing counsel for the insurance company.
- 02
Whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period of 708 days delay in filing the appeal which was condoned by the High Court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants-claimants, poor and illiterate and dependents of the deceased, submitted that the delay in the process during pendency before the High Court was on account of the counsel and should not be attributed to them; they argued the insurance company should be made liable to pay interest on the enhanced compensation and that they should not be deprived of interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023.
- Respondent
- Respondents submitted that the High Court's assessment of compensation was proper and on the higher side, the insurance company accepted the order and did not appeal, and the High Court was justified in denying interest for the period during which the paper book was not supplied by the appellants' counsel to the insurance company's counsel.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court judgment
Delay in filing an appeal attributable to the appellants may justify denial of interest for the period of that delay.
- 02
Supreme Court judgment
Once an appeal is filed, delay during pendency caused by the appellants' counsel in supplying the paper book should not automatically deprive the appellants of interest; such delay cannot be equated with appellants' fault in filing beyond limitation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's assessment of compensation, held that the appellants are not entitled to interest for the 708-day delay in filing the appeal (attributable to them) but modified the High Court order to allow the appellants interest at the same rate for the period 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 because the delay in supplying the paper book by their counsel cannot be imputed to the appellants.
Obiter and limits
- The income of the deceased was properly assessed at ₹8,750 per month.
- The appellants are poor and illiterate persons and were dependents of the deceased.
- No order as to costs.
Court disposition
Appeal partly allowed.
- Impugned High Court order modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest at the same rate for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023.
- Appeal partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1143 : 2024 INSC 1016
T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) Through Lrs. v. V.J. Antony and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 14749 of 2024)
19 December 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in denying the interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, which was the period of delay in supplying the copy of paper book to the standing counsel for the insurance company.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Denial of interest – The High Court had partly accepted appeal while enhancing the compensation, however, it denied the interest for the delay of 708 days in filing appeal and interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 – Justified or not:
Held: As far as assessment of compensation is concerned, the same does not call for interference by this Court – The appellants-claimants, for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, have been denied interest on the ground that there was delay on the part of the counsel for the appellants-claimants in not supplying the copy of the paper book to the counsel for the insurance company – Once the matter was before the Court, the appellants-claimants should not be deprived of the interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 – It cannot be said to be the fault on the part of the appellants-claimants, comparable to a fault in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation – In the case in hand, the appeal was barred by 708 days – The High Court while condoning the same, specifically directed that the appellants-claimants will not be entitled to any interest for the aforesaid period, in case the amount of compensation is enhanced – The order is quite reasonable – The aforesaid delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the appellants-claimants, hence, they will
* Author
1144
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
not be entitled to the interest for the period of 708 days – At the same time, after having filed the appeal and during the pendency, the appellants-claimants should not be made to suffer directing for non-payment of interest, because for such default claimants alone could not be held responsible – Consequently, denial of interest to the appellants for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 as directed is not justified. [Paras 9, 10, 11]
List of Keywords
Enhancement of compensation; Interest; Condonation of delay; Denial of interest.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14749 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2023 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA No. 1072 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Vaibhav, Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Ujjwal Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of impugned judgment1 and order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the High Court2vide which the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants was partly accepted enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants-claimants. The grievance raised by the appellants-claimants is that the High Court has denied interest to them for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023.
1
2
MACA no.1072 of 2015
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 12 S.C.R.
1145
3. The facts as available on record in brief are that the accident took place on 07.08.2006 when the deceased was travelling in his jeep along with his wife(now widow) and children and a bus hit their jeep, resulting in death of the deceased. The appellants-claimants, consisting of deceased’s widow and three daughters, filed claim appeal3 before the Tribunal4 seeking compensation of ₹15,00,000/-. The Tribunal passed an award of ₹4,15,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the appellants-claimants, making the driver, owner and the insurance company of the bus liable to pay the same.
4. Aggrieved against the award dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed appeal before the High Court. There was a delay of 708 days in filing the appeal. The same was condoned vide order dated 24.08.2023 with the condition that on the enhanced compensation, if allowed, the appellants-claimants will not be entitled to claim interest for the period of delay of 708 days. Further the period for which there was delay in service of copy of paper book upon the standing counsel for the insurance company shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the appeal.
5. The High Court partly accepted the appeal while enhancing the compensation further by an amount of ₹9,84,500/- along with interest @ 8% per annum. It was directed that appellants-claimants shall not be entitled to the interest for the delay period of 708 days in filing the appeal as was directed vide order dated 24.08.2023. Further appellants-claimants were not allowed interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, which was the period of delay in supplying the copy of paper book to the standing counsel for the insurance company.
6.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the appellants-claimants are poor and illiterate persons. The deceased was the only bread earner for the family, working as driver, died leaving behind his widow and three daughters as his dependents. The family was having a hard time to make both ends meet. The amount of compensation as assessed is on lower side as the income of the deceased was not assessed properly and hence, appropriate
3
4
OP (MV) no.655 of 2007
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Thalassery
T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) Through Lrs. v. V.J. Antony and Others 1146
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
compensation was not awarded. It was further argued that the appeal having been filed before High Court, there had been a delay in the process on account of the fault of the counsel of appellants-claimants, which should not be taken against the appellants-claimants as they were not at fault. Hence, the insurance company should be made liable to pay interest on the enhanced compensation. The appellants- claimants should not be deprived of interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the assessment of compensation by the High Court is already on higher side, however, still the insurance company, accepting the same, has not preferred any appeal. The order of the High Court does not call for interference even with reference to claim regarding interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, during which the copy of the paper book was not supplied by the counsel for the appellants-claimants to the counsel for the insurance company.
8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record
available.
9. As far as assessment of compensation is concerned, in our view the same does not call for interference by this Court. The accident took place on 07.08.2006. The income of the deceased, claimed to be working as a driver, has been properly assessed at ₹8,750/- per month by the High Court. Under other heads also, appropriate amount of compensation has been awarded. Hence, award to that extent does not call for interference.
10. The appellants-claimants, for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, have been denied interest on the ground that there was delay on the part of the counsel for the appellants-claimants in not supplying the copy of the paper book to the counsel for the insurance company. Once the matter was before the Court, the appellants-claimants should not be deprived of the interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023. It cannot be said to be the fault on the part of the appellants-claimants, comparable to a fault in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. In the case in hand, the appeal was barred by 708 days. The High Court while condoning the same, specifically directed that the appellants-claimants will not be entitled to any interest for the aforesaid period, in case the amount of compensation is enhanced.
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 12 S.C.R.
1147
The order is quite reasonable. The aforesaid delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the appellants-claimants, hence, they will not be entitled to the interest for the period of 708 days.
11. At the same time, after having filed the appeal and during the pendency, the appellants-claimants should not be made to suffer directing for non-payment of interest, because for such default claimants alone could not be held responsible. Consequently, denial of interest to the appellants for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 as directed is not justified.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation as directed and interest at the same rate for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) Through Lrs. v. V.J. Antony and Others
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.